[LEAPSECS] 2007-12-31 23:59:60 Z (sic)
magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Tue Jan 1 22:13:09 EST 2008
From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] 2007-12-31 23:59:60 Z (sic)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:04:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20080102030406.GJ14528 at mercury.ccil.org>
> > And in cases like that of Hugo Chavez with Venezuela last year, even
> > the authority can be sorely confused. Which is why non-repudiable *is*
> > a good idea.
> If the Government of Venezuela or any other country changes its mind
> about what the time zone in that country is, no one else in the world
> has a thing to say about it. There is and can be no contract, and so
> non-repudiation remains irrelevant.
> > What would IANA have done in the case of Venezuela?
> > Issue an update and then a week later issue another update?
> Of course. The Olsen TZ database is updated about 10 times a year because
> of such governmental whims.
> Civil time is the creation of civil authority, and has exactly as much
> relationship to mean solar time (or universal time, for that matter)
> as the civil authority thinks convenient.
In the same fashion, we must recognice that it is the civil authority that
decides weither the civil time is being UTC or UT1 based. We must also recall
that it remains for the civil authorities to decide weither they want leap
seconds or not.
Where a civil authority has chosen UT1 (using terms such as GMT or mean solar
time or whatever) UTC will not act as a ticker for civil time. This used to be
of a minor detail, but I am not sure it can be argued as a minor detail
It seems like some countries is considering moving from UTC to TAI plus some
More information about the LEAPSECS